There have been many rumors floating around about the next generation of game consoles, however, one prediction may finally be laid to rest. Sony has alledgedly rejected the idea of making its next console download-only, and deciding to keep with a more traditional optical disc-drive.

An unnamed source told the Wall Street Journal that Sony has decided against a download-only model due to the inconsistency of internet connections from country to country. As many gamers can attest, games can take up an extraordinarily large amount of hard drive space, and Sony feels that its customers who reside in countries with slower internet connections would be crippled by a requirement to download its games rather than just insert a disc.

The unnamed source said that Microsoft is looking to include an optical drive in its next console as well, having expressed similar concerns about internet connectivity in designing the successor to the Xbox 360.

However. Im sure it is totally because of unreliable internet connections and has absolutely nothing to do with proping up the validity of blu ray for one of the leading manufacturers of Blu ray devices, and a company that has vested interest in proliferation of the medium.

I still wonder how good/bad it would be if Microsoft and Sony made a combined console.OT: I am happy to know that physical copies of games are still going to be used, I just do not think we are ready for digital only games. I don't know about digital movies however, has anyone had any issues with downloading movies?

Well played sony, indeed the technology to support download only gaming is still in its infancy. It will be many decades before internet providers are able to develop Internet connections so strong that we get pop-ups in our dreams.

As much as I think downloading games is pretty cool, I still much prefer my games to be physical.

I don't expect all games to be digital only until, like, 10 years from now at the very least.

Irridium:Makes sense. An all-digital console just isn't feasible right now. And won't be for the foreseeable future.

Speaking as someone who hasn't bought a game physically for at least 6 years, that article is pure nonsense. If inter connections are so bad, why is steam the biggest PC game retailer. Do PC's have miraculous abilities to improve internet connections or do internet connections remain the same regardless of platform? The reason why, possibly, the next of consoles will have optical drives is cost pure and simple. The cost of increasing bandwidth and higher sever support cost versus the download only higher margins. If the report is true, then they have run the numbers say its not going to make them enough money to be worth the cost of bigger server infrastructure and bandwidth. The money spent on the capital costs would have to show more than about 4% return on investment to be worth while.

Speaking as someone who hasn't bought a game physically for at least 6 years, that article is pure nonsense. If inter connections are so bad, why is steam the biggest PC game retailer. Do PC's have miraculous abilities to improve internet connections or do internet connections remain the same regardless of platform? The reason why, possibly, the next of consoles will have optical drives is cost pure and simple. The cost of increasing bandwidth and higher sever support cost versus the download only higher margins. If the report is true, then they have run the numbers say its not going to make them enough money to be worth the cost of bigger server infrastructure and bandwidth. The money spent on the capital costs would have to show more than about 4% return on investment to be worth while.

PC games work well as a download only because there hasn't been much value in the physical media in quite some time. Console games on the other hand have a ton of value in physical media. Mainly that lovely 2nd hand market, rentals and just the ease of loaning a friend a game.

Agreed though that using the interweb as an excuse is pure BS. Sony's experiment with the PSPGo was the more likely culprit.

monkeymo4d: It will be many decades before internet providers are able to develop Internet connections so strong that we get pop-ups in our dreams.

Honestly, I think it will be far longer than that maybe our great grand children?. The service the ISPs provides is an ever growing demand, like food, water and electricity. On top of that, we don't have the technology to deal with the large data load efficiently and even if we did it would take years to rewire a country because of the expense. If you're going to give a user "unlimited" download and upload they are going to exploit it at all hours of the day.

OT:Oh, because not everyone has access to the internet? It would seem like Steam doesn't care. Hell, Gaikai and Onlive seem pretty confident. I take it than you don't like the idea of server fees that you'll either have to absorb or force a reasonable fee on users.

Kroxile:Anyone who panicked over the "rumor" that any next-gen console was going to be download only is really just a chicken little looking for something to cry about.

Still good that Sony officially put this crap to rest though.

I'm not really sure what a 'chicken little' is but I broadly agree with this. Did anyone seriously think the next gen was going to be download only? The cost of putting an optical drive in a console is virtually insignificant especially compared to the cost of the HDDs you'd need.

Kroxile:Anyone who panicked over the "rumor" that any next-gen console was going to be download only is really just a chicken little looking for something to cry about.

Still good that Sony officially put this crap to rest though.

I'm not really sure what a 'chicken little' is but I broadly agree with this. Did anyone seriously think the next gen was going to be download only? The cost of putting an optical drive in a console is virtually insignificant especially compared to the cost of the HDDs you'd need.

Chicken Little is the kid's story of the baby chicken that ran around screaming "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

We do need bigger new storage options for sure with download only. 250 GB isn't going to last me an entire cycle (I'm looking at you xbox). Also they need to be reasonably priced ($100 32 GB PS Vita memory card). Of course it also needs to be reliable. The PS3 was on the right track using a standard 2.5" HDD. Just need to go bigger I think.

Kroxile:Anyone who panicked over the "rumor" that any next-gen console was going to be download only is really just a chicken little looking for something to cry about.

Still good that Sony officially put this crap to rest though.

I'm not really sure what a 'chicken little' is but I broadly agree with this. Did anyone seriously think the next gen was going to be download only? The cost of putting an optical drive in a console is virtually insignificant especially compared to the cost of the HDDs you'd need.

Chicken Little is the kid's story of the baby chicken that ran around screaming "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

Come to think of it.. I can't remember why... but yeah, lol

From memory an acorn (or fruit/nut of your choice) hit him on the head. Rather than investigating he jumps to an outlandish conclusion.

Anyway...I see no mention of the new consoles not requiring or enabling online game registration, you don't need a stable connection for that...I thought that was what all the cheapskates console gamers were worried about.

I'm not surprised they didn't jump onto digital. I can't imagine their net infrastructure could handle the amount of data being pushed and pulled for games. And I doubt they would want to go into it without having a system similar to battle.net in place before they tried.

WMDogma:Sony feels that its customers who reside in countries with slower internet connections would be crippled by a requirement to download its games rather than just insert a disc.

Hell, even in the US, that's an issue for a good chunk of gamers. Slow or unreliable speeds are still a big problem for gamers. And then there's bandwidth caps (Console and game manufacturers probably don't want you to opt to purchase their games because it's a tenth of your limit or more per) and such.

Just glad someone actually remembers not all of us have blinding fast internet.

Now, it'll be interesting to see how they decide to handle previously purchased and downloaded PSX/PS2 titles with the next Playstation. I mean, I was already forced to purchase the digital versions of so many PSX titles I already owned, I don't really want to do it again. =/

Speaking as someone who hasn't bought a game physically for at least 6 years, that article is pure nonsense. If inter connections are so bad, why is steam the biggest PC game retailer. Do PC's have miraculous abilities to improve internet connections or do internet connections remain the same regardless of platform? The reason why, possibly, the next of consoles will have optical drives is cost pure and simple. The cost of increasing bandwidth and higher sever support cost versus the download only higher margins. If the report is true, then they have run the numbers say its not going to make them enough money to be worth the cost of bigger server infrastructure and bandwidth. The money spent on the capital costs would have to show more than about 4% return on investment to be worth while.

That may be all true but launching a system that required download-only games means alienating a big chunk of their clientele. Look at the Wii, for example. It is aimed at families and specifically parents who buy pretty games for their children. What about children, or adults for that matter, who save their money to buy or preorder the next CoD? Or people who need money for something and decides to sell their games? I'm not talking specifically about retail problems, by the way.

It's not the same for someone to buy a game that might look okay, play it, decide it sucks and try to sell it to someone to buy the next new thing. With digital games, you can't do that. Whether that's good or bad doesn't matter; a big amount of people will not like that and they will think twice before buying a game. So that means less profit.

Also, I'm pretty sure at least 30% of those who own a console (PS3, 360, or Wii) don't really care about playing online or having anything to do with the internet and connectivity while playing their game, just like in the ol' days. And 30% might not sound like much but no company wants to lose that profit especially now that games are not as profitable as they used to be because of the economy and price tags and whatnot. Believe me, I see it every day at work.

And yeah, I probably would have to hold back regarding my gaming habits if the next console does that digital game thing. I'm fairly knowledgeable when it comes to games and computers and stuff but my games do take ages to download, which is why I skip that altogether. At the moment, I don't need a better modem; it does the job just fine with my laptop. So yeah, just think of all the extra stuff you'd need just for the next console. As if this current gen. didn't need enough peripherals.

Irridium:Makes sense. An all-digital console just isn't feasible right now. And won't be for the foreseeable future.

Quite true, quite true. As I say to my CS friends whenever this comes up in conversation, the infrastructure just is not in a place where something like this can be created without alienating and/or horribly inconveniencing a massive chunk of the consumer base. This sort of thing will probably work like 20+ years in the future, but not now.

I agree with those who say "well no fucking duh." Sony would have been cock blocking a huge audience. Download caps were a foreign idea to be until recently but a lot of rural places in the US have limits to how much they can download and it can get expensive and it can be slow.

But I do look forward to games being digital only. There's something special about holding the disk but analysts say that with the cost of manufacturing, delivering, and retail taken out of the equation, the cost of games would go down. I would love for my ps3 to be more like Steam

Speaking as someone who hasn't bought a game physically for at least 6 years, that article is pure nonsense. If inter connections are so bad, why is steam the biggest PC game retailer. Do PC's have miraculous abilities to improve internet connections or do internet connections remain the same regardless of platform? The reason why, possibly, the next of consoles will have optical drives is cost pure and simple. The cost of increasing bandwidth and higher sever support cost versus the download only higher margins. If the report is true, then they have run the numbers say its not going to make them enough money to be worth the cost of bigger server infrastructure and bandwidth. The money spent on the capital costs would have to show more than about 4% return on investment to be worth while.

Ok, so what about the people with limited internet connections? Or people in other country s who can't have unlimited downloads and a 10GB game can easily be double their monthly allowance? Of course Sony have done the numbers and realized they'd lose out on money, what company wouldn't do their research?

You have forgotten that the Internet is still a Luxury for our so called "First World"...

You sound like you're only thinking about a small percentage of the population, remember there are 7 BILLION people in this world, and not all of them are well off like ourselves.

WMDogma:Sony feels that its customers who reside in countries with slower internet connections would be crippled by a requirement to download its games rather than just insert a disc.

Hell, even in the US, that's an issue for a good chunk of gamers. Slow or unreliable speeds are still a big problem for gamers. And then there's bandwidth caps (Console and game manufacturers probably don't want you to opt to purchase their games because it's a tenth of your limit or more per) and such.

Just glad someone actually remembers not all of us have blinding fast internet.

which brings into question why developers still think Always Online is a good form of DRM.

OT: Good to know I still have to worry about disks getting scratched up for the next generation.

How about we meet halfway? give us the ability to download copies of retail games digitally while at the same time have physical copies of the games?

Kind of how it is now, but instead of waiting several months if not a year or more for a game to become a digital copy on a consoles marketplace, have it day one instead.

Speaking as someone who hasn't bought a game physically for at least 6 years, that article is pure nonsense. If inter connections are so bad, why is steam the biggest PC game retailer. Do PC's have miraculous abilities to improve internet connections or do internet connections remain the same regardless of platform? The reason why, possibly, the next of consoles will have optical drives is cost pure and simple. The cost of increasing bandwidth and higher sever support cost versus the download only higher margins. If the report is true, then they have run the numbers say its not going to make them enough money to be worth the cost of bigger server infrastructure and bandwidth. The money spent on the capital costs would have to show more than about 4% return on investment to be worth while.

I'm with you on the PC. I would never go back to buying physical PC games again. There are potential future risks about it, but they are negligible. But, this is not nearly the same thing. Steam has had as many as 5 million concurrent users. That is awesome and proves that PC gaming is far from dead and is even growing since that number is much bigger than it used to be. But look at what the consoles did in worldwide sales. As of March 31st on this year, they have sold almost 70 million units. That means having potentially a large portion of them doing a similar or same operation. The numbers are just way different. All of that aside though, you can still buy PC games on physical media. To go exclusively online is not a smart move. I think they should move towards digital sales definitely. Just not cloud gaming.